The Enablers of Dr Cheng

enabler
noun
plural noun: enablers a person or thing that makes something possible. a person who encourages or enables negative or self-destructive behaviour in another.

Prepare yourself if your life has been touched by this individual, or others like him.

Ready? … OK. Let us now ponder the contradiction that is Dr William Chung Wing Cheng (GMC Reference Number 1631726). He is that thankfully rare being – a doctor who seemingly sets out to do harm.

As those unfortunate to cross his path can attest, he is beyond parody. There are just so many anecdotes of personal suffering inflicted on those forced to submit to one of his so-called ‘medical assessments’ in relation to ill health retirement or an an injury on duty award that there isn’t the space for this blog to go into exact details of his escapades. Suffice to say that everywhere he goes he manages to further damage already damaged individuals.

Rather than focus on what motivates Dr Cheng, which from the eyes of those put before him seems to be nothing more complicated than a greed-fuelled need to make money, we are going to discuss why Dr Cheng is employed as a SMP.

William Cheng is a name well known by those who read these pages. Troubling as his behaviour is, the fact he is given the opportunity to be unpleasant is evidence of the greater malaise affecting the administration of injury awards. How is it that a doctor who does harm is allowed to continue in post?

There are a multitude of reasons to think the ill-health and injury retirement process, and the administration of injury on duty pensions in the police is corrupted: the group-think of police management at all levels is one of them. Cowardice is another. Dr Cheng is the tool of the jellyfish: spineless HR directors synchronised swimming in one terminal direction by using Dr Cheng as their proxy.

In a just world disabled former police officers would not be placed in front of him only to be injured further by the trauma of facing not only his perverse decisions but his lies and his nasty attitude. Dr Cheng shows no compassion, no care, no empathy. He is a cold machine which has but one layered purpose, and that purpose is not to heal or comfort the sick, but to make money out of misery and make more misery so as to make more money.

Cheng is allowed to continue his work in this field as he comes across as a willing, arrogant, compliant part of a methodology devised by senior personnel intended to sideline and work around the Regulations whilst creating the illusion of performing a statutory duty.

Cheng does their bidding with gusto. He is not concerned should anyone find the strength to appeal his decisions, as he will earn another fee for attending each PMAB. For HR and Legal Services, and the bean counters, the appeal process is there to deter the vast majority from making any challenge. It is a win-win arrangement for Cheng and his paymasters. Over time Cheng saves them money. An injury pension paid at a lower band for the next thirty years, set against the single outlay of Cheng’s fee is a good deal. Every serving officer who is refused an ill health pension represents money freed up to be spent in other ways. Never mind that the Regulations are intended to support and compensate, in recognition of the inherent dangers present in police work. Never mind the obligation to see that the Regulations are applied fairly and correctly. Put such considerations to one side wherever there is an opportunity to save money.

Any suggestion that Dr Cheng is biased is portrayed as an assault on the entire medical profession and is seen as an affront to the vested interests in HR, as represented by the inner cabal within the NAMF, who would no doubt fall behind a campaign supporting Dr Cheng. We would hear from them that he is, in their view, independent and the appeals against him are just a consequence of the work that he does.

Yet from the evidence, the amount of appeals he generates appears to be a giant ball of flame hurtling into an abyss of despair.

These figures obtained from the Home Office show Dr Cheng has been responsible for a remarkable 28% of ALL PMAB hearings in the five years between 2010 to 2015.

Year

Total appeal hearings

No. hearings that Dr Cheng attended

No. these hearings that were appeals against Dr Cheng’s decision

No. these upheld (appellant’s appeal successful)

2010

100

12

12

3

2011

73

6

6

2

2012

50

10

10

2

2013

54

7

7

3

2014

67

30

30

8

2015

93

57

57

1

So out of all the SMPs in the UK – of all 43 police forces, just one doctor has caused over almost a third of all appeals to PMABs.

% of Cheng PMABs appeals

% of Cheng Appeals Upheld (successful for appellant)

2010

12.00%

25.00%

2011

8.22%

33.33%

2012

20.00%

20.00%

2013

12.96%

42.86%

2014

44.78%

26.67%

2015

61.29%

28.07%

In 2015 almost two thirds of PMABs nationwide were because of Dr Cheng. Over the full five year period 28% of appeals were found against this doctor.

The woeful number of successful appeals hides a truth. It is surprising that even this many appeals are won given the very real David v Goliath situation faced by the disabled former officer, but the truth is that it’s not just Dr Cheng who disabled former officers have to fight – it is the strength in numbers provided by the closed of ranks of full bureaucracy some forces chose to bring to bear against vulnerable damaged individuals – it can be breathtaking in its audacious scope and scale.

Any disabled former officer daring to challenge a decision by Dr Cheng is immediately faced with a wall of resistance from HR, and all others concerned. They close ranks behind their shields, as to admit any error is simply not within their collective psyche. Push against the shield wall and what results are accusations of vexatious behaviour and insane warped spouting of concepts of ‘duty’ wrapped up in wrongly interpreted extracts from the Regulations.

The Legal Services departments of some forces can and do provide a supportive environment for someone like Cheng to thrive in. HR use them to attempt justification for their maladministration, but the old saying, ‘garbage in, garbage out’ applies. The answer you get depends on the question you ask, and HR never ask the right questions. A HR manager seeking to protect themselves from blame will never ask an impartial question. If, by some fluke, they get a legal opinion which does not support their actions, then it never sees the light of day. Whenever HR say, ‘We have taken legal advice‘ they always, always, refuse to divulge what that advice is, thus avoiding the rightness or strength of that advice being subjected to objective scrutiny.

Do we have examples of how legal services conspire with HR to make life extremely unpleasant for anyone unfortunate to be placed in front of a SMP such as Dr Cheng? …

Of course we do.

The link below is to a discussion which is repeated in similar form in every meeting room, in every force that uses ‘gun for hire’ SMPs:

Avon & Somerset uses the services of gun for hire Dr ‘Deadeye’ Philip Johnson but the thought process are the same. Use the might of a public body to hammer aside the inadequacies of the doctor.

Official / Secret / Top Secret

Date of minutes Action # Action Update Date due RAG Owner O C25/09/15 3.1It was agreed that the Pension Authority could write to the individuals requesting that they release their information and that failure to do so would mean that a full review has not been able to be conducted and therefore based on the information available the award will be reduced to zero within a specified time limit.

Legal Services to provide advice to Pension Authority on wording of such a letter.

DJ advised the Pension Authority that when sending out letters to individuals who have withdrawn consent that a reduction in banding given can only be implied as you cannot predetermine and outcome if release is not made. The Pension Authority should advise what information can and will be taken into account when making a determination. This template letter will be sent in the first instance to TH, PT and AP who have all withdrawn consent.

DJ is an acronym for Daniel Johnson, the solicitor advocate (lawyer) who works for the Legal Services team in Avon and Somerset Constabulary (and as far as we know no relation to the namesake doctor).

The above extract is evidence the Solicitor Advocate for A&S, was willing to condone and justify a letter to disabled former officers intended to misdirect and threaten. A threat that is in fact a blatant bluff. What kind of solicitor can willingly conspire to make empty threats to disabled folk?

We need hardly remind our readers that there is no provision whatever within the Regulations for an injury pension to be reduced to zero should an individual fail to give consent for access to their sensitive personal information. Sending a letter which implies otherwise is a deliberate attempt to pervert the intent and purpose of the Regulations. It is a shocking indictment of the complete abandonment of professional ethics by the solicitor concerned. Daniel Johnson correctly warned the Pension Authority that a reduction in banding could not be applied as desired in the circumstances described, thus covering his back. But, he then offered a work-around to HR, telling them to merely imply that a reduction could result.

So, could a reduction ever result when an individual refuses to give consent for the SMP to inspect their medical record, or their financial and employment record? The answer is that such an outcome would be very very unlikely, as the Pension Authority is only entitled to make a decision on such evidence and medical advice as they think necessary. In the absence of any medical record there would be no evidence and no doctor could give informed advice with no records on which to base his opinion?

We can guarantee that nobody receiving such a letter would know the threat was an empty one. They would see it as real and would think they had no alternative other than to give consent to allow all and sundry to pour over their sensitive personal data.

If a Police Authority were to reduce a pension in these circumstances, there would be grounds for an immediate appeal, probably by way of a judicial review. The pensioner might be criticised for failing to cooperate, but the court would then hear the full and ugly history of threats, incompetence, misinformation, and corruption which compelled the individual to be fearful, with good reason, that the process was unlawful. Why should anyone cooperate with an unlawful process?

We have written about this before, but, bearing in mind that our audience includes some decent but possibly misinformed, misguided HR managers, SMPs and force solicitors, we will once more present the relevant regulation:

Refusal to be medically examined

If a question is referred to a medical authority under regulation 30, 31 or 32 and the person concerned wilfully or negligently fails to submit himself to such medical examination or to attend such interviews as the medical authority may consider necessary in order to enable him to make his decision, then—

(a)if the question arises otherwise than on an appeal to a board of medical referees, the police authority may make their determination on such evidence and medical advice as they in their discretion think necessary;

(b)if the question arises on an appeal to a board of medical referees, the appeal shall be deemed to be withdrawn

IODPA has no issue with lawfully held reviews of degree of disablement. We advise controlled and carefully specified consent to allow access to personal information relevant to the regulatory process. We do not advise that anyone give carte blanche consent to allow anyone to obtain, access and process their personal information. We see no reason why anyone in HR or Occupational Health should ever need to see any personal information beyond name, contact details, and degree of disablement for pension payment purposes of private citizens who were once police officers.

IODPA campaigns against unlawful application of the Regulations.

We try not to descend to personal name calling, but with the likes of Dr Cheng it is impossible not to see that the character and moral deficiency of the individual is the problem. We try to highlight the errors made by HR and others, and here we are really identifying systemic failures – maladministration resulting from a combination of numerous errors of thinking, faulty training or lack of training, the inability to accept that errors need to be admitted and corrected, the complete lack of good faith, the bias arising from a misplaced sense that disabled former officers, not the officials then in charge, were responsible for historic mistakes, and, above all, the repugnant view of injury pensions as a drain on scarce resources, making them a legitimate target for a determined and evolving attempt to reduce that burden by foul means.

So, Dr Cheng, we don’t like you, but we think you are the sort of pathetic morally bankrupt individual who is a gift to the corrupt managements which employ your services. Our real contempt is for them, as without them you could not continue to do your harm. Against this confederacy of dunces stands IODPA. We are brave enough to risk to tell the truth. We hope and trust that the decent, moral, HR managers, SMPs and legal people who work without controversy in the majority of police forces will join with us in exposing and rooting out this cancer of corruption which is in their midst.

All that it takes to enable corruption to spread is that people of good intent do nothing.

The Enablers of Dr Cheng

Share this:

Related

12 thoughts on “The Enablers of Dr Cheng”

I’m horrified at what I’ve just read and scared to death. I am due to see this Dr and I am very unstable. I don’t know what to do. If he is as it reads I may as well just hang myself now and save myself any further pain.

Dr. Cheng shows just how bloody ignorant he is when he states that nobody should be assessed as 100% according to the regulations. Well, Dr. Cheng, the regulations , which are law, state that if an injured officer, through the relevant, injury has no earning capacity i.e. they cannot work at all, then he/she should be assessed at 100%. Those are the regulations!

Consultants and Professors are more ably qualified than yourself so accept their medical evidence! My advise to you is to read and adhere to the regulations. Cast aside your preconceived ideas and your enmities and do what the law requires you to do!

I can only say it like it is. Pitkannen, Cheng and a Fma Ryan exploited me at the most vulnerable point of my life. There behaviour and lies came close to killing me. They are all greedy immoral people, I have met a lot of bad people but these guys are up there. There ignorance of policing and PTSI is incredible. Ego and money is what drives criminals.

Recently there was discussion in Parliament about assaults on police officers. They voted against higher sentencing deterrents, but did state that forces now need to create figures for “assaults with injury”… of course this leads to a golden opportunity for senior officers and high ranking civillians to manipulate those figures, but ultimately more and more injured offficers are going to face the rot that is the Ill health retirement process.
One South East force have a policy that forces every officer to submit to a psychiatric assessment before they are even allow to progress to seeing an SMP to be allowed to retire. This occurs even when there is a wealth of medical evidence showing the injury is physical. The SMP then makes the process as difficult as possible, and couples that thwarting with gross defamation of character and lacksadaisical attention to data protection. The process, and those who design and operate the process, are callous and careless in exercising what amounts to wholesale disability discrimination. Yet they remain blind to this and when mistakes are made will lie and hide beind a warped and twisted interpretation of the regulations.
Dr Charles Vivian starts the process of repulsive discrimination, Dr Cheng follows that repugnancy through to the bitter end in undervaluing for the purpose of injury award. They are shameless in their ill treatment as they breach the human rights of the vulnerable and pained.
The hypocrisy has become very public in recent weeks as that same force have paid journalistic lip service to the rise in assaults on police, with empty promises to ensure injured officers are cared for.
That force is luckier than most. It has one light that shines within the darkness of such cruelty. Their Fedeeration really do fight for the injured on duty.
This force are yet to start the repugnant practuce of unlawful injury pension reviews…but I suspect it is a matter of time. I just hope the head of the federation is elected nationally as the one voice to condemn the vile.

It is surely time for every person who has been assessed by Dr Cheng to get in touch with IODPA and give an account of their experiences.

The GMC could not ignore multiple complaints about his behaviour.

For anyone who is slated to see Dr Cheng, why not simply refuse, citing concerns about his lack of impartiality and his repeated demonstrations of his low level of professionalism.

I strongly suggest that every decision made by Dr Cheng should be put under legal scrutiny, and suspect that most, probably all, will be found to contains errors or law or fact.

This is a SMP who has gone on record as saying he would never give anyone a 100% degree of disablement. If that is not bias, then I don’t know what is.

My view is that a high percentage of officers retiring due to injury on duty should initially be assessed as 100% disabled. They will be out of work, signed off sick, and have no earned income. Sure, a few months down the line, with time to recouperate, effective treatment and rest, they may recover some capacity to work and earn, and can have their degree of disablement reviewed.

But, according to Dr Cheng, nobody deserves to get the proper level of help that the Regulations provide, as nobody can ever be 100% disabled.

“He can smile so he doesn’t have PTSD” the diagnosis from Dr Cheng FC.
IODPA are uncovering some very interesting facts about the whole review process the lies corruption and threats are unbelievable and not usually associated with the police service of the U.K.
But lies and threats and corruption is what is happening. Merseyside employ an ex police officer to make decisions on bandings, corrupt and unlawful, Peter Owens you know you are out of you depth so come on blab to the world about the coruptness in Merseyside and get the spotlight off you!
Cheng I don’t know you but I don’t like you one day you will fall from a great height and there will be many many officers that you have destroyed there to see you fall.
I would like to see some HR people, SMPs and FMAs locked up for what they have done to injured officers and I think one day I will get my wish.
It has gone one too long but the screw is turning and a lot of you lot must be worried because you know what you have done is wrong and in some cases illegal.
I find you all guilty of conspiring to cause harm and hurt to injured officers for years and years.

Dr William Cheng is well known for his lack of compassion and defiance of the Hippocratic Oath. He also has an accomplice known as Dr Mervi Pitkannen, another imported contractor, noted for her enmity towards retired police officers, subjecting them to humiliating medical examinations when they are in a vulnerable position. Yet another nasty, police hating, money focused individual. What a dangerous woman and loose cannon this woman is, exacerbating the mental health problems experienced by officers due to her amateur, inexperienced and prima-donna attitude. However, her downfall is her lack of knowledge and expertise in the area of depression and PTSD. Anyone who has been subject to her interrogation will understand. This WILL be uncovered sooner or later. My understanding is that a number of complaints about both of these ’doctors’ conduct have been and are currently being referred to the GMC. I understand they are currently being scrutinised and I urge your members who have had any experience with these heretics to formalise a complaint to the GMC. They CANNOT ignore a plethora of genuine complaints. It is time these disingenuous individuals are brought to justice and exported from our society.

I saw that about 60% of the decisions were upheld. The problem with that is that it makes financial sense for the police forces to go for a money saving program if they have such a high chance of being successful. Corrupt as they may be the medical reviews save the job money. It’s a shame that they use such despicable means…

I don’t know how the role of SMP could ever have been regarded as independent. The likes of Cheng are always going to do the bidding of their paymasters.

Make the best of it while it lasts Mr Cheng because when all of this gets before a Judge it will be back to the GP’s surgery for you, (if you keep your job) then you will have to change roles and do some real doctoring.

Do we all remember at training school ( Police Forces used to have training Schools, where everyone went, studied law for 16 weeks, those that were positively discriminated against could only fail, 3 weekly, 1 quarterly exam, everyone else, well it didn’t matter ) we were all sold this lie about the Police being one big family, & how we would get looked after. Well, this for serving officers, next time you deal with an armed incident, a knife, a violent domestic, a riot, a full on car pursuit, or fight, ask yourself a very quick question. IF I get injured will I end up in front of one of these tossers, & who looks after my family then? There is a high chance, that the PPA didn’t go to a training school, or get tutored by an experienced bobby, so you are just a number that costs. You are no good to people off sick, and if medically retired ” perform no worthwhile purpose” to the people you served. Ask the bankrupt baker from Bristol.
Why do people like Cheng, Bulpitt and Johnson ( 50% pay rise for not making a single decision) get away with it?
Simple answer, they, the Police Management and Civilians want them to carry on!
You never see the middle or senior managers go, or god forbid anyone in HR, or other Civilian useless quango go, that would be like Turkeys voting for Christmas!
In the end the cuts, come from the front line.
Where else stupid?
The officialdom in the Police want you or I nowhere near a JR.
This would be their nightmare scenario.
Keep fighting, and never give up!

This group of police force HR managers, occupational health personnel and the odd force solicitor is supposedly concerned in its quarterly meetings with keeping the police workforce fit and well. The clue is in the name - it is supposed to concentrate on people who work. However, it spends time also considering matters relating to disabled former officers. Quite what legitimates this group's interest in disabled private citizens who are in receipt of a police injury pension is a mystery.

The mystery deepens when it is revealed that the Home Office and representatives of the commercial company which has the contract to run Police Medical Appeal Boards, HML, also regularly appear on the list of delegates. The mystery morphs into something smelling of conspiracy when the delegate list is entirely absent of any representative of any of the people whose lives the NAMF seeks to affect. There is nobody from the Police Federation, nor from NARPO, nor anyone from any disablement charity, mental health association, etc. etc. In other words, the NAMF is a one-sided talking shop. Even at that level it is not properly representative of all police forces, for we note that there are rarely, if ever, delegates present from every area.

Those of us with long memories, recollect that the Home Office claimed that it had conducted what it called a 'survey' of all forces, way back in 2004, prior to finalising its unlawful guidance issued as Annex C to HO circular 46/2004. The HO claimed that their survey showed that it was common practice for forces to review the degree of disablement of injury-on-duty pensioners once they reached what would have been normal force retirement age. This is what the guidance said:

'This Guidance is being issued to help ensure a fairer, more cohesive approach to the payment of injury benefits to ill-health retired officers who have reached the compulsory retirement age with their Force. A recent survey found that practice in this area was diverse. Some forces automatically reduced degree of disablement benefits to the lowest banding when this age had been reached - others continued to pay benefits at the same rate until the death of the Officer concerned.'

The plain truth, revealed through Freedom of Information Act requests, was that there never was any survey. The HO later tried to claim that the bold, unmistakable claim made in its guidance resulted from 'round the table discussions' at meetings of the NAMF. Yet nothing even hinting at such discussions appeared in the minutes and the HO could not produce a single scrap of data nor any record or any other evidence to show quite how it had come to the conclusion that some forces automatically reduced benefits to the lowest band at what would have been normal force retirement age.

Shockingly, further research revealed that absolutely no forces, not a single one out of the 43 in England and Wales, had ever reduced benefits to the lowest band at what would have been normal force retirement age, automatically or otherwise. The Home Office was caught out in a blatant lie. It was a lie intended for one purpose only - its actually intent was to give an air of normalcy to the huge change in practice which the HO wished to bring about.

This astounding act by a Government department tells us what the NAMF was then, and remains now. It's objective in so far as police injury on duty pensions is concerned, is to subvert the law of the land. The law cannot be changed retrospectively, so the inner circle work to find ways to unlawfully manipulate it through influencing gullible HR managers, and by training carefully selected corruptible SMPs how to refuse grant of an injury award and how to conduct reviews which reduce the degree of disablement of retired officers.